(discussion) With stats/facts to back it up, explain where you think our d group ranks.

[IBatch]

On 7/17/2022 at 1:06 PM, Ilya Mikheyev said:

Unfortunately there's not much access to underlying AHL stats - saying that, underlying AHL stats would still only go so far. After watching a lot more AHL hockey the past couple years than ever, the league is way more chaotic than the NHL than I originally understood by just watching the odd game. Justin Bailey looks like a surefire offensive playdriver at the AHL level, but he looks like a one-dimensional (but big) speedy winger at the NHL level is one player I always think of. Michael Grabner never put up huge AHL numbers, but he looked NHL calibre based on his linemates and ability to finish. Context matters a lot at the AHL level, and there's also some luck when it comes to the opportunity actually afforded when your NHL opportunity comes up.

 

Rathbone's limited NHL underlying stats have been mixed, but his role has been unpredictable and he's rarely strung together more than a couple NHL games with the same NHL partner. Last year, he stepped into a team, which at the time was putting up one of the worst defensive stats in recent memory (thanks Nolan Baumgartner). The year before his underlying stats were pretty good with a +6.6% relative CORSI w/ approx. 50/50 Ozone Dzone stars. His possession quality stats were about breaking even in his limited NHL games overall. Overall, his NHL underlying #s sample is just too small, especially as the situations he was used in were unpredictable and varied. However, the big knock about Rathbone was his ability to skate out of the D zone at the NHL level after dominating in that area before he turned pro. After last year, Ryan Johnston said this:

 

A lot of defenseman struggle with that when they turn pro, so it's not an uncommon skill to adapt to. It seems like Boner has improved in that area quite a bit. He came from a college program that produced Adam Fox and John Marino in the same years. Per my own assessment, I think he was good at the NHL level but would sometimes be a bit too 'cocky' when he needed to be careful and it led to some big lapses, but polishing that was a big reason he was sent back down last year after just 7 games. It was more of a "decision making"  skill to learn and not that he doesn't have zone exit/break out skills, which has an abundance of IMO. Now that he's polished I actually expect that he'll be very very good at zone exits, and pairing him with Dermott will give the Canucks a 3rd pairing that can transition the puck...quite a bit better than a pairing of say Kyle Burroughs - Luke Schenn/Travis Hamonic (sry Travis, used to be a fan), and as good is Brad Hunt is at reading offensive plays, his zone exits are nothing to write home about. Rathbone has also gained at least 20 pounds since his draft day, which is promising.

 

 

 

After being sent down Rathbone took a few games to find his stride in role on the team. So even with 40 points in 39 game is impressive, he didn't get going until game 3 and didn't get any points until game 4. So that's really 40 points in the final 36 games, it's also a season where he was taken off the ice on stretcher in a scary situation, but he didn't miss a beat. Canucks brass are calling him resilient & ultra competitive. If he doesn't get moved as part of a package, he's gonna be a big boost to the blueline this year.

 

Rathbone is a little guy yes.   So was Chelios and it's not like Kieth is big either lol.   What impresses me about Boner is he's jacked.   So his "size" isn't as concerning as say QHs "size" ... nope he's not Chelios (Larry Robinson rightly coined him a "junkyard dog" because like Bieksa he wasn't big but played a ton bigger) but his commitment to the gym is apparent.    I get our left side is busy.   But would like Rathbone to get a chance.    And i'm sure management is a little worried about letting him go to another team as well.  They should be.   All he's done so far, is prove at every level he belongs.     

[IBatch]

23 hours ago, King Loui said:

All you're doing is arguing the drafting pedigree between two guys, one who's job was to trade draft picks away and focus on getting to the cup final(which he did) vs a guy who finished bottom 5 every year for 7 years and who's job specifically was to draft 

 

1.  Don't really need to draft goalies when you have Luongo, Schneider and Lack in the system.  Plus traded Luongo for another elite goalie then traded Schneider for our Captain.

2.  Found Chris Tanev

3.  Couldn't replace Edler I guess that's correct?

4.  Fired for wanting to rebuild with the Sedins

5. Benning's depth from rounds 2-7 eight years in.... Demko.  

 

Check out these beauties

 

Juolevi (5th)

Virtanen (6th)

Baertschi (53rd)

Vey (50th)

Gadjovich (55th)

Lind (33rd)

Woo (34th)

Gudbranson  (38th) + (McCann) 

Hoglander now dwindling 

 

Do you know we've made just one 2nd round selection and one 1st round selection in the last 3 years.   We're cap strapped, with no prospects and just finished outside the playoff picture again  #draftgod 

 

 

 

Good spin.   Did YOU know that MG only traded away one first!   That's it.  Holland probably traded 15 over the years but won't get into that.    MG did an amazing job of bringing in a professional culture, and providing his players with every tool they could use (sleep clinics, oxygen tanks etc etc).   But his drafting was awful.   Like truly truly awful.   And he didn't part with many picks lol.   It's not like his 6 drafts were rail thin like other top teams we competed against during his tenure (SJ and DET).    And he did a masterful job of clausing everyone up, none of those guys he brought in expect Hamhuis.   Pick on JB all you want.   But we got ALL of Co-ho (10th overall), Hutton and Horvat (9th) during his tenure.    And with all that cap savings, was given to Booth and Ballard.  Cap percentage wise that's the same as 6 million today.   So 6 for Ballard amd 6 for Booth.  MG was just as bad as JB in different ways. 

 

 

On that.   Allvin and JR don't have all the cap shedding that Nonis was left with after Burke (that went to MG, and wow - hey - let's use your client and offer a 2 x 10 million deal to suck up ALL that cap opening up in one fell swoop!  If Sundin didn't retire we'd have been f!cked with MG first move ... and people still rave about Sundin's half season being the reason they team ascended, absolutely wrong)... they've got a team that has assets that can actually be traded. 

 

Its 100% on them what happens next.   Unlike MG, who did the right things kind of, based on all the heavy lifting that already occurred.     MG ... go look at his draft picks.   Sure some later ones were gone, but he only traded one first.    For sure he used his expertise to keep our cap down, one thing that is lost on many fans is back then our taxes were also a lot lower.   Same as the Alberta teams.  

[Timråfan]

3 hours ago, IBatch said:

Good spin.   Did YOU know that MG only traded away one first!   That's it.  Holland probably traded 15 over the years but won't get into that.    MG did an amazing job of bringing in a professional culture, and providing his players with every tool they could use (sleep clinics, oxygen tanks etc etc).   But his drafting was awful.   Like truly truly awful.   And he didn't part with many picks lol.   It's not like his 6 drafts were rail thin like other top teams we competed against during his tenure (SJ and DET).    And he did a masterful job of clausing everyone up, none of those guys he brought in expect Hamhuis.   Pick on JB all you want.   But we got ALL of Co-ho (10th overall), Hutton and Horvat (9th) during his tenure.    And with all that cap savings, was given to Booth and Ballard.  Cap percentage wise that's the same as 6 million today.   So 6 for Ballard amd 6 for Booth.  MG was just as bad as JB in different ways. 

 

 

On that.   Allvin and JR don't have all the cap shedding that Nonis was left with after Burke (that went to MG, and wow - hey - let's use your client and offer a 2 x 10 million deal to suck up ALL that cap opening up in one fell swoop!  If Sundin didn't retire we'd have been f!cked with MG first move ... and people still rave about Sundin's half season being the reason they team ascended, absolutely wrong)... they've got a team that has assets that can actually be traded. 

 

Its 100% on them what happens next.   Unlike MG, who did the right things kind of, based on all the heavy lifting that already occurred.     MG ... go look at his draft picks.   Sure some later ones were gone, but he only traded one first.    For sure he used his expertise to keep our cap down, one thing that is lost on many fans is back then our taxes were also a lot lower.   Same as the Alberta teams.  

Be honest now, Gillis had very high draft numbers compared to Benning. 

The important thing is that Gillis hired the guy who seems to be The scout the Canucks had. 

Neither Gillis or Benning was hired to scout players so it's just stupid to compare draft picks between them. 

The GM has the responsibility of the whole company.  There were Gillis top notch as you said. 

Benning the worst I've heard or seen by myself. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[IBatch]

2 hours ago, Timråfan said:

Be honest now, Gillis had very high draft numbers compared to Benning. 

The important thing is that Gillis hired the guy who seems to be The scout the Canucks had. 

Neither Gillis or Benning was hired to scout players so it's just stupid to compare draft picks between them. 

The GM has the responsibility of the whole company.  There were Gillis top notch as you said. 

Benning the worst I've heard or seen by myself. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Let's be "honest".   What would have Nonis done with all the cap space freed up from the Burke era.   And what would have JB done instead of MG?   We don't know.    But when it comes to drafting JB wasn't a drafting "guru" but he was also far and away from the black hole during the MG era as well.    He had a 10th and a 9th as well, and the 9th came from his goalie issues.   Come on man.   The biggest black hole of drafting in club history started in 2005 and didn't stop until 2013. 

 

Edit: Timra i've been a fan of this club since the early 80's... we've only ever had one great drafter and that was Milford.  And one great GM and that was Quin.   Wonder what Allvin will do!    Hmmm.  Im going to guess, nothing but ride this pony out.  Care to make a bet?   JB drafting was never an issue. 

Edited July 19, 2022 by IBatch

[Alflives]

4 minutes ago, IBatch said:

Let's be "honest".   What would have Nonis done with all the cap space freed up from the Burke era.   And what would have JB done instead of MG?   We don't know.    But when it comes to drafting JB wasn't a drafting "guru" but he was also far and away from the black hole during the MG era as well.    He had a 10th and a 9th as well, and the 9th came from his goalie issues.   Come on man.   The biggest black hole of drafting in club history started in 2005 and didn't stop until 2013. 

It’s not arguable.  The most successful teams we’ve ever had were ones built by Gillis.  The worst era was the Benning one.

Gillis, after his brilliant work, was fired for telling the owner it was time to rebuild.  Benning was then hired to retool, reset, or whatever he was attempting (and failing miserably) to do. 

Gillis = most successful teams - Fact.

Benning = worst ever era - Fact.

New management = ? 

 

[Timråfan]

14 minutes ago, IBatch said:

Let's be "honest".   What would have Nonis done with all the cap space freed up from the Burke era.   And what would have JB done instead of MG?   We don't know.    But when it comes to drafting JB wasn't a drafting "guru" but he was also far and away from the black hole during the MG era as well.    He had a 10th and a 9th as well, and the 9th came from his goalie issues.   Come on man.   The biggest black hole of drafting in club history started in 2005 and didn't stop until 2013. 

 

Edit: Timra i've been a fan of this club since the early 80's... we've only ever had one great drafter and that was Milford.  And one great GM and that was Quin.   Wonder what Allvin will do!    Hmmm.  Im going to guess, nothing but ride this pony out.  Care to make a bet?   JB drafting was never an issue. 

And JB drafting was Brackett, Gradin  and Inge Hammarström… Gillis had some bad personnel that seems to have arrived around 2005 as you wrote. 
Gillis hired Brackett so in my book Gillis was responsible for the drafting. 

[IBatch]

2 minutes ago, Timråfan said:

And JB drafting was Brackett, Gradin  and Inge Hammarström… Gillis had some bad personnel that seems to have arrived around 2005 as you wrote. 
Gillis hired Brackett so in my book Gillis was responsible for the drafting. 

[IBatch]

13 minutes ago, Alflives said:

It’s not arguable.  The most successful teams we’ve ever had were ones built by Gillis.  The worst era was the Benning one.

Gillis, after his brilliant work, was fired for telling the owner it was time to rebuild.  Benning was then hired to retool, reset, or whatever he was attempting (and failing miserably) to do. 

Gillis = most successful teams - Fact.

Benning = worst ever era - Fact.

New management = ? 

 

Alf... sure MG - why don't we have a statue of him outside then?   Why do people still consider Quin as the best GM and a lot coach all-time even though it's Neilsons statue outside?   Good grief.  What did he exactly do.   He took all the Burke money, that Nonis has to endure, and offered it to his client Sundin - league max contract back then 10 x 2.   Aside from Erhoff and Hamhuis, what free agents/trades did he make that moved the needle?   A monkey could have come in and done a better or equal job.   Even me!   So i'm not buying that.   A team that was 95% built by Burke and Nonis.   Not MG.   Sure he was great at signing guys by adding clauses and stuff.   Then blew all, all the savings on Booth and Ballard which he later had to buy out.   Maybe MG would have done a better job then JB, not a super high bar there either, but maybe JB would have also done a better job then MG.    Can't wait until we get the GM after this one.   Personally, from where I'm standing, Nonis got a nasty shake, and so did Burke.   MG ... if he was so "great" why didn't he get another job?  Both Nonis and Burke did... 

[CaptKirk888]

On 7/17/2022 at 9:18 AM, Dazzle said:

Rathbone's issue is his defensive play, but we'll have to see how it is this coming season. He has a ton of offense, but he is currently a defensive liability. Hughes, on the other hand, was much better in that regard, but even he had his own question marks.

What were his defensive stats in the AHL last year? And how do we know how that translates if he plays regularly in the NHL?

 

[CaptKirk888]

On 7/17/2022 at 10:14 AM, SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME said:

For some “at a glance” ratings on our defencemen, based purely on stats, here are the player cards for Canucks players, from The Athletic:

 

https://theathletic.com/3062792/2022/04/18/nhl-player-cards-vancouver-canucks/

 

It’s probably behind a paywall, so I’ll try to quickly summarize:

 

Quinn Hughes: top pairing D, elite assists and points, value equal to contract 

 

OEL: fringe top pairing/high end middle pairing D, high middle pair stats pretty much across the board, top pair defensive stats, annual value ~$3M less than contract (aka overpaid by $3M/yr)

 

Myers: middle pairing D, middle to bottom pair team effects, higher end bottom pairing production, annual value ~$4M less than contract 

 

Poolman: bottom pairing to fridge middle pairing D, top pairing defensive effects, fringe NHL level to bottom pairing on everything else, annual value ~$1M less than contract

 

Dermott: middle pairing D, elite defensive impact (statistically anyway), high end middle pairing offensive impact, bottom pairing production, annual value ~$1M more than contract 

 

Schenn: high end middle pairing D, top pairing defensive impact, middle pairing effects pretty much everywhere else, annual value ~2.5M more than contract

 

All together, it’s not that bad. Probably puts us somewhere near the middle of the pack, as far as our overall defence (at least statistically). Main issue is being ~$5M overpaid as a group. Some better decisions on player acquisitions and contracts would have allowed us to swap in another top pairing level D, in place of a bottom pairing guy, which would make the overall group far more impressive.

Good info but the writers at the Athletic are not NHlL GMs that have to negotiate contracts.

[Hairy Kneel]

As much as I like Rathbone's creativity I'm hoping for a surprise jump of Myrenberg for 10 games. A big hard hitting rhd, like a Hutton jump to the big league. 

[Timråfan]

44 minutes ago, IBatch said:

Well… I’m not a meme guy or whatever. 
Without Hammarström no Petey.

for me that says a lot.

Hughes on the other hand. I know nothing of that scouting process.

[SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME]

1 hour ago, CaptKirk888 said:

Good info but the writers at the Athletic are not NHlL GMs that have to negotiate contracts.

For sure. But we make do with what we can.
 

One thing I can promise, the day NHL GMs start publicly sharing their internal data analytics and player evaluation reports, I’ll be sure to post them here.  

Edited July 19, 2022 by SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME
Typos

[Guest]

15 hours ago, VancouverHabitant said:

So I had a simple, outside of the box idea on contrasting our defensive group against our forwards.  

When teams play 5 on 5, you're looking at 3 forwards and 2 dmen...  meaning that dmen make up 40% of the skaters.  

When teams play 4 on 4, it's almost always 2 forwards and 2 dmen on the ice, so dmen make up a higher percentage (50%) of the skaters on the team and so one could argue that dmen have a higher influence on the game in 4 on 4 situations.  

So, what if you compared 5 on 5 results vs 4 on 4 results for a team as a marker of how good it's defensemen are compared to the forwards?  

 

5 on 5:  4003 minutes, Corsi For 49.94% , Fenwick For 49.97%, Expected Goals For 49.10%  

4 on 4: 135 minutes, Corsi For 56.41% , Fenwick For 54.51%, Expected Goals For 56.12% 

 

Big difference in the sample size, however our numbers were much stronger at 4 on 4 compared to 5 on 5.  This was mostly an exercise in boredom while we wait for the big trade

What nobody cares about this new hockey statistic I came up with?!?  

 

I spent at least 20 minutes on these calculations because you cannot find straight 4vs4 numbers anywhere.  

 

I suppose I should've come up with a fancy name for my new stat. 

[JM_]

15 hours ago, VancouverHabitant said:

So basically we've deduced that people really struggle with trying to use stats and facts to back up their arguments.  It always defaults back to what they already think.  

 

Okay so I was thinking about this question @JM_ and my initial thought was to look at our team defensive stats as a reflection of how good our defense is.  While those numbers generally look pretty good when it comes to the bottom line (goals allowed), and middle of the pack in terms of advanced stats (high danger chances allowed)...  all those numbers are really a reflection of the whole team.  

 

So I had a simple, outside of the box idea on contrasting our defensive group against our forwards.  

When teams play 5 on 5, you're looking at 3 forwards and 2 dmen...  meaning that dmen make up 40% of the skaters.  

When teams play 4 on 4, it's almost always 2 forwards and 2 dmen on the ice, so dmen make up a higher percentage (50%) of the skaters on the team and so one could argue that dmen have a higher influence on the game in 4 on 4 situations.  

So, what if you compared 5 on 5 results vs 4 on 4 results for a team as a marker of how good it's defensemen are compared to the forwards?  

 

5 on 5:  4003 minutes, Corsi For 49.94% , Fenwick For 49.97%, Expected Goals For 49.10%  

4 on 4: 135 minutes, Corsi For 56.41% , Fenwick For 54.51%, Expected Goals For 56.12% 

 

Big difference in the sample size, however our numbers were much stronger at 4 on 4 compared to 5 on 5.  This was mostly an exercise in boredom while we wait for the big trade

that is interesting, I wonder if that difference is Hughes and him dominating possession? 

[DSVII]

On 7/17/2022 at 8:03 AM, JM_ said:

So I'm seeing a lot of comments about our defensemen - some say maybe it could be OK or average with better coaching, others say its complete crap. What are the best measures of where the group is really at?

 

One of the best measures imo is high danger chances allowed. On that measure we allowed 973 - puts us middle of the pack at 16th oa. (https://www.naturalstattrick.com/teamtable.php)

 

NHL stat page provides a listing of outshoot/outshot. We won 22 games last year being outshot by opponents, putting us at 8th worst (https://www.nhl.com/stats/teams?report=outshootoutshotby&reportType=season&seasonFrom=20212022&seasonTo=20212022&gameType=2&filter=gamesPlayed,gte,1&sort=winsOutshotByOpponent&page=0&pageSize=50) Interestingly, NYR, Minni, Nashville also had similar stats being outshot in wins. 

 

Goals against, we were 8th best in the league at 231. Goals for, 18th at 246. (https://www.nhl.com/stats/teams?reportType=season&seasonFrom=20212022&seasonTo=20212022&gameType=2&filter=gamesPlayed,gte,1&sort=goalsFor&page=0&pageSize=50).

 

 

So clearly we need more production, but is the d as bad as many are saying? how much is Demko bailing them out? how good/bad is the group?

 

Also, these are full season stats - Green and Bruce combined. 

 

 

Please back up with stats/facts. 

Ah @JM_ This kind of question really appeals to my OCD/ADHD part of my brain haha so thanks :D

 

If we want to be really granular, you can find some good datasets with line pairings here: https://moneypuck.com/data.htm.

 

And cap number from our Full Roster Cap spending on Defensemen from last season (post TDL so no Hamonic but plus Dermott) found here: https://www.spotrac.com/nhl/positional/2021/defenseman/full-cap/

 

For my analysis I'm ranking the sum of all the line pairing data below.

 

Keep in mind the dataset I'm using has 5on5 strength only, filtered to D pairings in 2021-2022. And I'm not ranking this based on expected goals, since this is defensive pairing data, but i'm summing up all the shots/attempts/chances/giveaways/hits/goals that all our D pairings were on for/against combined for in 5v5 situations in 2021-2022.

 

To answer your question, no, the D isn't as craptacular as it was in the beginning of the season, but to me it comes down to two things. Cap Space and Opportunity cost. We traded a lot of future potential (cap space + picks) to put this blue line together + we have one of the more expensive blue lines in the league. Offensively they aren't driving the play as much as other teams cheaper blue lines, and defensively they are ok, but middling results for a top 10 paid blueline that cost us picks and cap flexibility sours me a bit on it. I think Demko covers up a lot. 

 

I think the below rankings really illustrates how much our Goaltending has bailed us out at 5v5. Our D-pairings have given up the least goals in the league 5v5 while performing roughly average on the defensive end. And Bruce has also done a good job with this D-core limiting high danger chances against 5v5 once he took over.

 

I think as far as evaluating the blue line I'd like to see how they do without the goaltending. Basically:

 

Would you feel confident in the quality of  this blue line to play them in front of a league average goalie while paying them a top 10 cap hit that translates to ~$4 mil more than what the league average spends on defense ($24.2 mil)? I think it all boils down to that for me. 

 

This is a game of inches and when a rival team can assemble a better blue line than us for $3-4 mil cheaper it's huge. That's a better blue line + a JT Miller deadline acquisition at TDL or room for a 40 pt player, that makes a huge difference in the salary cap era.

 

I still believe Benning could and should have done better, considering the options and cap flexibility we gave up to assemble this blue line.

 

Of course, any thoughts are appreciated!

 

 

Ranked 5v5 Results from Collective Team Defense Pairings by Salary Cap Spend 2021-2022

 

Random thoughts: 

- Ouch San Jose!

- Interesting to note both cup finalists have the most expensive blue lines

- Tampa Bay is actually better on the defensive end of the puck than the offense relative to the rest of the league. 

- Florida, Toronto, Vegas, Carolina have really offensive blue lines

- Either Hellebuyck is not as good as I thought he was or WPG's defense is REALLY bad.

- Boston and Carolina is probably the best bang for your buck, all around blue line team

- you get what you paid for at the bottom. Horrible metrics almost all around.

- Montreal, Winnipeg, Edmonton have the most aggressive D when it comes to pinching and forcing a turnover, which probably corresponds with their suboptimal Defensive stats.

- Demko is worth every penny of his $5 mil and then some

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 20, 2022 by DSVII

[DSVII]

8 hours ago, VancouverHabitant said:

What nobody cares about this new hockey statistic I came up with?!?  

 

I spent at least 20 minutes on these calculations because you cannot find straight 4vs4 numbers anywhere.  

 

I suppose I should've come up with a fancy name for my new stat. 

https://moneypuck.com/data.htm

 

Download the team datasets, it has all situations. 

 

5on5
4on5
5on4

Other (which i assume includes 5on3)

 

[Viper007]

40 minutes ago, DSVII said:

Ah @JM_ This kind of question really appeals to my OCD/ADHD part of my brain haha so thanks :D

 

If we want to be really granular, you can find some good datasets with line pairings here: https://moneypuck.com/data.htm.

 

And cap number from our Full Roster Cap spending on Defensemen from last season (post TDL so no Hamonic but plus Dermott) found here: https://www.spotrac.com/nhl/positional/2021/defenseman/full-cap/

 

For my analysis I'm ranking the sum of all the line pairing data below.

 

Keep in mind the dataset I'm using has 5on5 strength only, filtered to D pairings in 2021-2022. And I'm not ranking this based on expected goals, since this is defensive pairing data, but i'm summing up all the shots/attempts/chances/giveaways/hits/goals that all our D pairings were on for/against combined for in 5v5 situations in 2021-2022.

 

To answer your question, no, the D isn't as craptacular as it was in the beginning of the season, but to me it comes down to two things. Cap Space and Opportunity cost. We traded a lot of future potential (cap space + picks) to put this blue line together + we have one of the more expensive blue lines in the league. Offensively they aren't driving the play as much as other teams cheaper blue lines, and defensively they are ok, but middling results for a top 10 paid blueline that cost us picks and cap flexibility sours me a bit on it. I think Demko covers up a lot. 

 

I think the below rankings really illustrates how much our Goaltending has bailed us out at 5v5. Our D-pairings have given up the least goals in the league 5v5 while performing roughly average on the defensive end. And Bruce has also done a good job with this D-core limiting high danger chances against 5v5 once he took over.

 

I think as far as evaluating the blue line I'd like to see how they do without the goaltending. Basically:

 

Would you feel confident in having this blue line play in front of a league average goalie while paying them at a top 10 salary? I think it all boils down to that for me. 

 

This is a game of inches and when a rival team can assemble a better blue line than us for $3 mil cheaper it's huge. That's a better blue line + a JT Miller deadline acquisition at TDL or room for a 40 pt player, that makes a huge difference in the salary cap era.

 

I still believe Benning could and should have done better, considering the options and cap flexibility we gave up to assemble this blue line.

 

Of course, any thoughts are appreciated!

 

 

Ranked 5v5 Results from Collective Team Defense Pairings by Salary Cap Spend 2021-2022

 

Random thoughts: 

- Ouch San Jose!

- Interesting to note both cup finalists have the most expensive blue lines

- Tampa Bay is actually better on the defensive end of the puck than the offense relative to the rest of the league. 

- Florida, Toronto, Vegas, Carolina have really offensive blue lines

- Either Hellebuyck is not as good as I thought he was or WPG's defense is REALLY bad.

- Boston is probably the best bang for your buck, all around blue line team

- you get what you paid for at the bottom. Horrible metrics almost all around.

- Montreal, Winnipeg, Edmonton have the most aggressive D when it comes to pinching and forcing a turnover, which probably corresponds with their suboptimal Defensive stats.

- Demko is worth every penny of his $5 mil and then some

 

 

 

 

 

 

The stat the really sticks out to me is the high danger shots against where we ranked #9.  Just shows how people don't watch all the other teams and just assume that Vancouver gives up a lot of high chances in the defensive zone.  This stat shows that we're Top 10 in high danger shots, so we don't give up a ton of chances, compared to 2/3rds of the teams.  Our offense from the D really sucked though, but I remember the D had like only 1 goal for like half the season.

[Bad_BOI_pete]

On 7/17/2022 at 11:14 AM, SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME said:

For some “at a glance” ratings on our defencemen, based purely on stats, here are the player cards for Canucks players, from The Athletic:

 

https://theathletic.com/3062792/2022/04/18/nhl-player-cards-vancouver-canucks/

 

It’s probably behind a paywall, so I’ll try to quickly summarize:

 

Quinn Hughes: top pairing D, elite assists and points, value equal to contract 

 

OEL: fringe top pairing/high end middle pairing D, high middle pair stats pretty much across the board, top pair defensive stats, annual value ~$3M less than contract (aka overpaid by $3M/yr)

 

Myers: middle pairing D, middle to bottom pair team effects, higher end bottom pairing production, annual value ~$4M less than contract 

 

Poolman: bottom pairing to fridge middle pairing D, top pairing defensive effects, fringe NHL level to bottom pairing on everything else, annual value ~$1M less than contract

 

Dermott: middle pairing D, elite defensive impact (statistically anyway), high end middle pairing offensive impact, bottom pairing production, annual value ~$1M more than contract 

 

Schenn: high end middle pairing D, top pairing defensive impact, middle pairing effects pretty much everywhere else, annual value ~2.5M more than contract

 

All together, it’s not that bad. Probably puts us somewhere near the middle of the pack, as far as our overall defence (at least statistically). Main issue is being ~$5M overpaid as a group. Some better decisions on player acquisitions and contracts would have allowed us to swap in another top pairing level D, in place of a bottom pairing guy, which would make the overall group far more impressive.

Myers worth less than dermott. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL. this guy probably never watched a single canuck game, my guess he may have watched a few leafs games though

[IBatch]

15 hours ago, Alflives said:

It’s not arguable.  The most successful teams we’ve ever had were ones built by Gillis.  The worst era was the Benning one.

Gillis, after his brilliant work, was fired for telling the owner it was time to rebuild.  Benning was then hired to retool, reset, or whatever he was attempting (and failing miserably) to do. 

Gillis = most successful teams - Fact.

Benning = worst ever era - Fact.

New management = ? 

 

Alf Gillis didn't build the team though.   His main adds were Erhoff, Hamhuis, Booth and Ballard.    Batted 50/50 on them... also miffed on not re-signing Mitchell (concussed or not - Booth also had a history of those and MG didn't have a problem trading for him did he?, and had to buy out both of them) ...   Yes assembled some decent/good bottom six guys as well.    Kesler was the main engine on the second line...Sedin, Sedin, Burrows, Bieksa, Salo, Edler, Hansen, Luongo, Schnieder, is not part of a team "he built".. that's absolutely debatable because they are "facts".     That's the core except for Hamhuis right there.  

 

In our entire club history, we've never had a team like we do now either - as in that's 95% built by one GM for better or worse.   Horvat is the lone player.   Don't have your crystal ball, but let's hope this one's following a similar arc in its cycle, and all Allvin needs to do is make a couple adjustments to it.     I don't have any issues with MG, it is what it is.    But the vast majority of that core, was not his doing.    Hamhuis was core, Erhoff guess too, here and gone in a jiffy though.   To me the biggest what if's were how things could have gone differently, if all the cap saved by clausing guys all the way down to Hansen, was used for two guys that in todays market would cost 6 million ... And i liked Booth and Ballard.    MG was great at some things, ok at others and bad at some things too.  

 

 It does seem a little strange that a guy who ran one of the best teams ever not to win a cup, is out of work still.    Think he wasn't well liked by his peers, maybe because he was on the other bench his first career but that's just an opinion. 

Edited July 20, 2022 by IBatch